Диссертация (Политическая коммуникация в Рунете как фактор российского политического процесса), страница 27

В. Перспективы развития в России«Информационногообщества»:(Социальныйпортретроссийской интернет-аудитории по данным социологическихопросов) // ПОЛИС. Политические исследования. 2002. № 5.С.16-19.95) Чугунов А. В. Формирование моделей информационногообщества и выбор пути России в эпоху глобального развития //Политическая коммуникация в постсоветской России:проблемы формирования и парадигмы развития. Материалысекции«Политическаякоммуникация»Третьеговсероссийского конгресса политологов.

28–29 апреля 2003 г. /Под общ. ред. Л. Н. Тимофеевой, Е. В. Лобзы. – М.:Республиканская типография, 2003.96) Шарков Ф. И. Истоки и парадигмы исследований социальнойкоммуникации // Социс. 2001. № 8.97) Шварценберг Р. Ж. Политическая социология: В 3т. – M.,1992.98) Шевченко, И.

А. Политические интернет-технологии втрансформирующемся обществе. Дисс. канд. полит. наук. –Ставрополь, 2005.99) Шеремет, А. Н. Интернет как средство массовойкоммуникации: социологический анализ. Дисс. канд. социол.Наук. – Екатеринбург, 2003.100) Шутов А. Ю. Политический процесс – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1994.101) Яницкий О.И. Митинги повсюду: реабилитация гражданскогоактивизма в России // Общественные науки и современность.2012.

№ 3.Зарубежные источники102) Alexander C. J., Pal L. A. Digital democracy: Policy and politics inthe wired world. – Toronto: Oxford University, 1998.103) Allen G. Come the Revolution // Wired. 1995. September.104) Almond G., Powell G. Comparative Politics Today: A WorldView. – Glenview, 1988.180105) Barber B. The uncertainty of digital politics: Democracy’s uneasyrelationship with information Technology // Harvard InternationalReview.

2001. № 23. P. 42–48.106) Benhabib S. The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in theGlobal Era. – Princeton, 2002.107) Bichard S. Building Blogs: a Multi-Dimensional Analysis of theDistribution of Frames on the 2004 Presidential Candidate WebSites // Journalism and Mass Communication. Columbia. 2006.Vol. 83. №. 2.108) Bimber В. The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism,Community, and Accelerated Pluralism // Polity. 1998. Vol.

31.№1. P . 133-160.109) Bimber B. The study of information technology and civicengagement // Political Communication. 2000. Vol. 17. №. 4. P.329-333.110) Bonfadelli H. The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical andempirical investigation // European Journal of Communication.2002. №17. P. 65-84.111) Boulianne S. Does internet use affect engagement? A metaanalysis of research // Political Communication. 2009. № 26. P.193-211.112) Bruszt L., Verdes B., Stark D.

Shaping the Web of CivicParticipation: Civil Society Websites in Eastern Europe // Journal ofPublic Policy. 2005. Vol. 25. Iss. 01. P. 149-163.113) Bucy E. P., Gregson K. S. Media participation: A legitimizingmechanism of mass democracy // New Media and Society. 2001. №3. P. 357-380.114) Cairncross F. The Death of Distance: How the CommunicationsRevolution Will Change Our Lives.

– Boston: MA: HarvardBusiness School Press, 1997.115) Carpini D. Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the newinformation environment // Political Communication. 2000. №7. P.341–350.116) Chandler D. Technological or Media Determinism. September1995[Электронныйресурс].URL:http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html. (датаобращения: 02.08.2012 г.).117) Clark S.

J. A populist critique of direct democracy // Harvard LawReview. 1998. Vol. 112. № 2. P. 434-482.181118) Coleman S. New mediation and direct representation:reconceptualizing representation in the digital age // New MediaSociety. 2005. Vol. 7. №. 2. P. 177-198.119) Conge P.J. The concept of political participation: toward adefinition // Comparative politics. 1988. Vol. 20.

№.2. P. 241-249.120) Dahlberg L. Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: fromconsensus to contestation // New media & society. 2007. Vol. 9. №.5. P. 827–847.121) Dalton, R. J., Klingemann, H. (ed.) Oxford handbook of politicalbehavior.

– Oxford, 2007.122) Denhard R. B., Denhardt J.V. The New Public Service: ServingRather Than Steering // Public Administration Review. 2000. Vol.60. №.6. P. 549-559.123) Deutsch K. Toward a Cybernetic Model of Man and Society inModern Systems for the Behavioral Scientist. – Chicago, 1968.124) Dijk V., Hacker J. The Digital Divide as a Complex and DynamicPhenomenon. Special Issue: Remapping the Digital Divide // TheInformation Society. 2003.

№.19. P. 315–326.125) DiMaggio, P. and Hargittai, E. From digital divide to digitalinequality: studying Internet use as Penetration Increases. WorkingPaper No. 15, the Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies,Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. 2001[Электронныйресурс].URL:http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap15.html(датаобращения: 02.04.2013 г.).126) Easton D. A. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. – New York:Wiley, 1965.127) Enikolopov R., Petrova M., Zhuravskaya E. Media and PoliticalPersuasion: Evidence from Russia // American Economic Review.2011. №. 101. P.

3253–3285.128) Etzioni A. The Spirit of Community: rights, responsibilities, andthe communitarian agenda. – New York: Crown Publishers, 1993.129) Farmer B., Benoit G. How the Internet is Changing PoliticalCampaigning // The New American. Appleton. 2007. Vol. 23. Iss.20.130) Federman А. Moscow’s New Rules: Islands of press freedom in acountry of control // Columbia Journalism Review. 26.01.2010.[Электронныйресурс].URL:182http://www.cjr.org/feature/moscows_new_rules.phpобращения: 02.08.2012 г.).(дата131) Feenberg A.

The Idea of Progress and the Politics of Technology //Philosophy and Technology. 1982. №5.132) Franzen A. Does the Internet make us lonely? // EuropeanSociological Review. 2000. №. 160. P. 427-438.133) Fraser N. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to thecritique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.),Habermas and the public sphere. – Boston: MIT Press, 1992.134) Freeman R. Democracy in the Digital Age. – London, 1997.135) Goroett I., O’Donnell V.

Propaganda and Persuasion. – N.Y.,1992.136) Groper R. Electronic Mail and the Reinvigoration of AmericanDemocracy // Social Science Computer Review. 1996. №14.137) Grossman L. K. The Electronic Republic. – New York, NY:Viking, 1995.138) Hacker K. L., V. Dijk J. ‘Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory andPractice. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.139) Huckfeldt R., Sprague J. Citizens, Politics and SocialCommunication.

Information and Influence in an ElectionCampaign. – Cambridge, 1995.140) Innis H. The bias of communication. – Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1951.141) Jennings M .K., Zeitner V. Internet Use and Civic Engagement: ALongitudinal Analysis // The Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003. Vol.67. № 3. P. 311-334.142) Judith S. Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community /Communities in Cyberspace.

Peter Kollock and Marc A. Smith. –Routledge, 1999.143) Kakabadse A., Kakabadse N., Kouzmin A. Reinventing theDemocratic Governance Project Through Information Technology?A Growing Agenda for Debate // Public Administration Review.2003. Vol. 63. №.1. P. 44-60.144) Klein H. Tocqueville in cyberspace: Using the Internet for citizenassociations // The Information Society.

1999. №.15. P. 213-220.183145) Krueger B. S. Assessing the potential of Internet politicalparticipation in the United States: A resource approach // AmericanPolitics Research. 2002. № 30. P. 476–498.146) Lasarsfeld P., Berelson B., Guadet H. The People's Choice. HowVoter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. – NewYork-London, 1969.147) Lasswell H. The Structure and Function of Communication inSociety / The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. –Chicago, 1971.148) Lipset S. M., Rokkan S.

Cleavage Structures, Party System, andVoter Alignments // The West European Party System. – Oxford,1990.149) Margolis M. and Resnick D. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace"Revolution". – London: Sage Publications, 2000.150) Masuda Y. The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society. –Washington, 1983.151) McLuhan M., Fiore Q. The Mеdium is the Messagе. – N.Y., 1967.152) Milbrath L. W. Political Participation: how and why do people getinvolved in politics? – Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.153) Musso J.

A., Weare C., Hale M. Designing Web technologies forlocal governance reform: Good management or good democracy? //Political Communications. 1999. № 17. P.1-19.154) Negroponte N. Being Digital. – NewYork, 1995.155) Norris, P. A virtuous circle: political communications inpostindustrial societies. – Cambridge, UK; New York, NY:Cambridge University Press, 2000.156) Norris P. Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty,and the Internet Worldwide. – Cambridge University Press, 2001.157) Papacharissi Z. The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere// New Media Society.

2002. Vol. 4. №1. P. 9-27.158) Peterson S. Political behavior: patterns in everyday life. – London:Sage, 1990.159) Polat R. K. The Internet and political participation: Exploring theexplanatory links // European Journal of Communication. 2005. №20. P. 435–459.160) Porat M., Rubin M. The Information Economy: Development andMeasurement – Wash., 1978.184161) Poster M. Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere //Internet Culture/ Porter D. – New York: Routledge, 1997.162) Postman N. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.– New York: Vintage, 1993.163) Pye L. Political Communication // The Blackwell Encyclopedia ofPolitical Institutions.

Oxford – New York, 1987.164) Reid E. Hierarchy and power: Social control in cyberspace. InCommunities in cyberspace, eds. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock. –London: Routledge, 1999.165) Reilley C. A. Teaching Wikipedia as a Mirrored Technology. FirstMonday. 2011. Vol. 16. № 1-3.166) Rheingold H. The Great Equalizer // Whole Earth Review. 1991.Summer.